Download - arXiv

Exploiting multilingual nomenclatures and language-independent text features
as an interlingua for cross-lingual text analysis applications
Ralf Steinberger, Bruno Pouliquen & Camelia Ignat
European Commission – Joint Research Centre (JRC)
Via E. Fermi, T.P. 267, 21020 Ispra (VA), Italy
Firstname.Lastname@jrc.it – http:// www.jrc.it/langtech
Abstract
We are proposing a simple, but efficient basic approach for a number of multilingual and cross-lingual language technology applications
that are not limited to the usual two or three languages, but that can be applied with relatively little effort to larger sets of languages.
The approach consists of using existing multilingual linguistic resources such as thesauri, nomenclatures and gazetteers, as
well as exploiting the existence of additional more or less language-independent text items such as dates, currency expressions, numbers,
names and cognates. Mapping texts onto the multilingual resources and identifying word token links between texts in different
languages are basic ingredients for applications such as cross-lingual document similarity calculation, multilingual clustering and categorisation,
cross-lingual document retrieval, and tools to provide cross-lingual information access.
1. Background and Motivation
The European Union (EU) currently has 20 official languages,
plus a few non-official ones. Most existing text
analysis software tools have been developed for a few major
languages, while very few resources and tools are
available for the less widely spoken languages. There
clearly is a need for more tools that can help the European
citizens to access textual information written in the other
languages.
The 20 official EU languages add up to 190 language
pair combinations. Almost all cross-lingual text analysis
applications, including Machine Translation (MT), Cross-
Lingual Information Retrieval (CLIR) and Cross-Lingual
News Topic Tracking (CLNTT), make use of bilingual
equivalences and rules. The few approaches to CLNTT, for
instance, are either based on bilingual dictionaries (Wactlar
1999) or use MT (Leek et al. 1999). In the EU setting,
interlingua approaches and approaches towards unified
multilingual resources, such as EuroWordNet and
MULTEXT, clearly gain in attraction. However, there are
many more unexploited resources that may not have been
developed for machine use, but that can be exploited for
multilingual Information Extraction (IE) and to provide
cross-lingual information access.
The Language Technology team of the Joint Research
Centre (JRC) has the aim to produce a number of text
analysis applications for ideally all official EU languages
(and more) that help users to navigate in large multilingual
document collections and that provide them with
cross-lingual information access. Due to a lack of manpower
and due to the limited availability of machineusable
linguistic resources, we developed the following
preferences:
(a) limiting language-specific text processing to a minimum,
by using heuristics and other shallow methods;
(b) using statistics and Machine Learning (ML) methods
rather than hand-crafted linguistic rules, where possible;
(c) making use of various available multilingual lexical
resources, even if they were not initially developed for
machine use.
While it is clear that more thorough knowledge-driven
methods would produce better results in many cases, the
JRC’s work has shown that a shallow and mostly language-independent
approach can yield a number of useful
and new text analysis applications while keeping the language-specific
effort to between one and three person
months of effort per language.
The following sections describe efforts to map texts
onto multilingual knowledge structures (Section 2) and to
exploit further almost language-independent text features
(Section 3). Section 4 explains how to deal with some
language-specific issues and Section 5 lists a few language-independent
methods and tools that can be used together
with the resources mentioned in the previous sections.
Section 6 shows some useful applications built with
the procedures described in this article. In Section 7, we
draw a few conclusions.
2. Mapping texts onto existing multilingual
thesauri, nomenclatures and gazetteers
When mapping a given text onto a knowledge structure
such as a thesaurus, we create a text representation consisting
of a choice of thesaurus nodes, and possibly also of
the relative importance of various nodes for the text representation.
One, but not the only way of carrying out this
mapping process is by verifying the lexical overlap between
the document’s vocabulary and the terms of the
thesaurus. Two documents can be assumed to be similar if
they have a similar representation according to the mapping
onto this thesaurus.
In a multilingual thesaurus, nodes in the various language
versions are linked via language-independent (typically
numerical) node identifiers. While the conceptual
world of a given language or of a specific thesaurus is, of
course, not completely language-independent, the numerical
thesaurus links between various language versions are
good enough for an interlingua approximation. Two
documents written in different languages can thus be assumed
to be similar if they have a similar text representation
according to this multilingual thesaurus.
Additionally to thesauri, gazetteers and nomenclatures
can fulfil the same function. Gazetteers are geographical
dictionaries, i.e. lists of place names. According to Norviliené
(forthcoming), the term nomenclature is used to
describe ordered systems of words (e.g. product names)
used in a particular discipline (e.g. business or customs),

Figure 1. Recognition of place names in Bulgarian and
Czech text, and display of the results in English.
containing a description of entities from a particular domain
and their, typically mono-hierarchical, relationship.
Thesauri are poly-hierarchically ordered systems of concepts
and their natural language names that are mainly
used for documentation purposes such as indexing and retrieval.
The aim of this section is to show how texts can be
mapped onto one or more thesauri to create a multifaceted
language-independent document representation.
The more thesauri can be used, the more information will
be available for the document representation and the better
documents can be compared with each other. The following
sub-sections sketch our current mapping process
onto various such lexical knowledge sources.
2.1. Gazetteers of place names
Unlike people’s names and other named entities, place
names cannot be recognised by searching for patterns in
text because there are as good as no contextual clues (Gey
2000). Instead, geographical place name recognition has
to rely on gazetteers and can only be carried out via a
lookup of text words in the gazetteer. As places are
spelled with a first uppercase letter in EU languages, only
uppercase words need to be looked up. The lookup process
sounds simple, but there are four major difficulties:
(a) Place names can also be words in one or more languages,
such as ‘And’ (Iran) and ‘Split’ (Croatia);
(b) Some place names are homonymic with people’s
names, such as ‘Victoria’ (capital of the Seychelles,
and others) and ‘Annan’ (UK);
(c) Many major places have varying names in different
languages (exonyms; Venezia vs. Venice, etc.) or even
in the same language (‘Saint Petersburg’, ‘Saint Pétersbourg’,
‘Санкт-Петербург’ [Sankt-Peterbúrg],
‘Leningrad’, ‘Petrograd’, etc.).
(d) Multiple places share the same name, such as the fourteen
cities and villages in the world called ‘Paris’;
While place name recognition in general is a very well
understood named entity recognition task, disambiguation
between various homographic place names (issue d) has
only recently been tackled (Pouliquen et al. 2004a). Exonym
recognition (issue c) has to rely on an exhaustive
multilingual database. While a number of monolingual
gazetteers are freely available (see Gey 2000) we are only
aware of two multilingual place name lists: the KNAB database
of the Institute of the Estonian Language 1 and the
1 See http://www.eki.ee/knab/knab.htm.
European Commission’s NUTS database 2 , currently available
in fifteen languages.
Even for languages with relatively few speakers such
as Slovene, good resources exist. For instance, KNAB currently
contains about 150 Slovene place names. The freely
available database of the Geonet Name Server 3 has 6600
English language references of Slovene place names. Slovene
place names are handled by the Slovene governmental
commission for the standardisation of geographical
names 4 , who even provide a link to a gazetteer of exonyms
5 .
Our approach consists of looking up all uppercase
words in the gazetteer database and of applying a number
of heuristics for disambiguation (see Pouliquen et al.
2004a). When a string could be a single word or be part of
a multi-word place name, the longer place name is preferred.
The result is a list of place names occurring in the
text with their offset and length, plus latitude and longitude,
as well as information on the country they belong to
and probably information about the hierarchical organisation
of the country (e.g. town, province, region, country).
In Figure 1, automatically identified place names in Bulgarian
and Czech text are highlighted and translated. Additional
information is available in the underlying XML
file, but is not displayed here.
To limit the negative impact of place names that could
also be common words or people’s names (problems (a)
and (b)), which would lead to many wrong hits and thus to
a low precision, we currently use lists of geo-stop words,
i.e. words that should not be marked as place names even
if they are found in text. As ambiguous place names such
as ‘And’ and ‘Split’ are only a problem for English language
texts, but not for German or other languages, there
should be a different geo-stop word list for each language.
Producing a geo-stop word list for a new language takes
little effort as word frequency lists of the language can be
used. By automatically geo-coding a frequency list of the
ten thousand most frequent words of the language and collecting
those words that were found by the system, but
that are not place names, such a geo-stop word list is
quickly produced. Person names such as Victoria are
harder to come around as the person name is rather frequent
and there are 190 places with this name in the
world, including the capital of the Seychelles. This problem
can only be overcome by using the outcome of the
person name recognition tool described in section 3.2.
An evaluation of the place name recognition tool in
English texts yielded a precision of 96.8% and a recall of
96.5%. For details, see Ignat et al. (2003).
Language-specific issues regarding the lookup process,
such as place name inflection, will be discussed in
section 4 as they are not only relevant to place name recognition.
The result of the mapping process is thus a vector of
place names where each place name is a dimension and
the frequency with which it has been mentioned in the text
is the length of the vector. For some applications, it may
be useful to restrict the recognition resolution to the country
level, i.e. each mention of a place in the country adds
2 Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/ramon/.
3 See http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/.
4 See http://www.sigov.si/kszi/.
5 Available at http://www.sigov.si/kszi/ang/exonyms.pdf.

TARIC CODE PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
0702 Tomatoes, fresh or chilled
0702 00 00 07 Cherry tomatoes
0702 00 00 99 Other
0703 Onions, shallots, garlic, leeks and other
alliaceous vegetables, fresh or chilled
0703 10 Onions and shallots
0703 20 Garlic
0703 90 Leeks and other alliaceous vegetables
0703 90 00 10 Leeks
0703 90 00 90 Other
Table 1. English product descriptions in TARIC chapter:
Edible Vegetables and Certain Roots and Tubers.
to the country score. The occurrence frequency and the
country score can also be normalised, using TF.IDF or
similar, to down-weight the importance of places like
Washington that are highly frequent in some text types
such as world news.
2.2. Nomenclatures of products, etc.
Other views of the same document can be produced by
listing all document terms from various other fields, such
as products and product groups, professions, medical or
electro-technical terms, etc. Various nomenclatures can be
downloaded from the internet (see Norviliené 2004), and
many of them are available on the EC’s classification
server Ramon (see Footnote 2). For instance, there is the
electro-technical nomenclature ETIM 6 , the Statistical Classification
of Products by Activity in the European Economic
Community CPA, the Statistical Classification of
Economic Activities in the European Community NACE,
and many more.
To date, we have only worked with the Integrated Tariff
of the European Communities TARIC 7 , which is the hierarchical
product list used by the Customs Offices in the
EU to declare the movement of goods across borders.
TARIC is a more detailed version of the so-called Combined
Nomenclature CN, which is again more detailed
than the Harmonised System HS used by the World Customs
Organisation. TARIC distinguishes about 28,000
headings and subdivisions.
We chose TARIC because it exists in twenty languages
(including Slovene) and because it is a rather complete list
of tangible items that can be imported or exported. It is in
the nature of TARIC that illegal products such as bombs
and many drugs are not included (although heroin and cocaine
are part of TARIC). It includes live animals, food,
chemicals, pharmaceuticals, textiles, precious stones, metals,
machinery, vehicles, optical material, works of art,
and much more.
Table 1 shows some of the product descriptions that
are organised hierarchically into up to 5 levels (two digits
per level). Knowing which of the products and product
groups are referred to in a text can be very useful to generate
a product-related document representation, i.e. a
vector of products and their relative importance in the
6 See http://www.etim.de/html/download.html
7 See http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/
databases/taric_en.htm
text. We can furthermore use the numerical TARIC codes
as an interlingua to represent the product aspect of document
written in the twenty languages in which the product
nomenclature exists. However, before being able to use
the product lists of this resource in a lookup process, we
needed to overcome several difficulties:
(a) As the entire TARIC product description (e.g. “Leeks
and other alliaceous vegetables” in code 070390) will
not be found verbatim in the text, the product terminology
first needs to be extracted from the description
(e.g. leeks and alliaceous vegetables in Table 1).
(b) Usually, the plural forms are used in TARIC so that the
singular or other inflected forms need to be added for
the lookup process to be successful. For further issues
concerning inflection of words and suffixes, see Section
4.
(c) Syntactic co-ordination constructions such as in code
0703 need to be resolved and expanded out to produce
lists such as fresh onions, chilled onions, fresh shallots,
chilled alliaceous vegetables, etc.
(d) This process typically results in product lists such as
fresh onions and chilled onions, while the most usual
underspecified term onions is not part of the list. This
needs to be added.
(e) While multi-word terms are usually monosemous,
many single-word terms such as onion or juice can be
part of many different TARIC classes as there are many
different types of juices and onions (wild onions, pearl
onions, dried onions, etc.). As we did not want to miss
frequently used products such as onions or juice, and
we did not want one term to trigger many different
TARIC classes, we decided to add about 350 supergroups
such as vegetables and milk products and to
place the under-specified term directly under the super-group.
These steps were carried out, mostly by the Centre for Information
and Language Processing CIS 8 at the University
of Munich in Germany, in the context of a collaborative
agreement, for the languages English, German, French,
Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. In the semi-automatic
process, heuristics were used and results were checked
manually. Inflection forms were added by making use of
extensive morphological dictionaries available at CIS. The
English and Italian dictionary resources created by CIS
were then checked thoroughly for correctness at the JRC.
The resulting dictionaries are thus of the form SUPER-
GROUP | CODE | TERM where several terms are allowed for
the same code if written one term per line, and several
codes are obviously allowed for each super-group. The
super-group column furthermore allows us to do a more
coarse-grained classification of texts so that documents
triggering the class vegetables several times are identified
as similar even if they do not mention the same vegetables.
To date, the dictionaries have been developed for the
languages English, Italian, German, French, Spanish and
Portuguese.
Regarding the recognition of the derived product terminology
in the text, the same lookup procedure can be
used as for geographical place names. However, in most
European languages, products are not spelled with a first
uppercase letter so that all words need to be checked
against the terms in the product list. Figure 2 shows some
product recognition results.
8 See http://www.cis.uni-muenchen.de/

The difficulties involved in the lookup process are
again linked to polysemous words like bush, joint, bus,
etc. Some of these terms belong to very different TARIC
classes (e.g. joint). Others are simply homographic with
words not related to products (e.g. Bush). For testing, we
applied the system to various text types and, more importantly,
to the 10,000 top frequent words derived from reference
corpora. This gave us a good idea of the most frequent
missing products, which were then added to the dictionaries.
Furthermore, this helped us to identify those
high-frequency words that are homographic with products
and that could thus potentially generate wrong hits. Depending
on the type of problem, we used one of two solutions.
(a) For words triggering different TARIC product
classes, we usually amended the dictionary by adding
some additional specification (e.g. joint was changed to
rubber joint) that helps in the disambiguation. The disadvantage
is that the single word joint will no longer be recognised.
(b) For words that are homographic with nonproduct
vocabulary of the language (e.g. Bush), we produced
a language-dependent product stop word list containing
all those words that the system should not recognise.
This helps to avoid that the US president triggers the
product class live plants. We thus decided to sacrifice recall
for precision.
The effort to prepare and tune the product dictionaries
for each language ranges between two and six months per
language, but we foresaw that the advantage of mapping
texts onto the TARIC nomenclature with its encompassing
coverage would be worth the effort. The result of the
product recognition procedure is thus a product information
extraction tool that allows us also to provide users
with product-specific cross-lingual information access and
to produce a product-specific feature vector for each
document that can be used for monolingual and crosslingual
document similarity calculation.
The TARIC nomenclature is seemingly distributed for
free, but the dictionaries derived from it cannot currently
be made available due to the agreement with CIS. However,
the JRC would be interested in collaborations creating
publicly available resources for more languages.
2.3. Thesauri and classification systems
Libraries and documentation centres of most large organisations
use hierarchically organised thesauri or flat lists of
subject domain descriptions as classification systems to
store and retrieve their documents. Documents are often
multiply classified, meaning that each document is
marked as belonging to several classes (multi-label categorisation).
Such a classification of a document leads to
yet another vector space representation of documents, using
the descriptors as dimensions and, if the descriptors
are ordered or weighted, the weight as vector length.
They ate young river salmon with cream and potatoes.
Figure 2. Automatic recognition of products in English
text. Display of the results in English and Portuguese.
The European Parliament (EP) and the European
Commission (EC) have jointly developed a thesaurus
called EUROVOC (EUROVOC 1995) that is used by them and
about twenty regional and national European parliaments
to index (i.e. classify) their texts. Though other classification
systems exist, EUROVOC is adapted by a growing
number of national organisations so that it has now become
sort of a standard. To obtain a licence, it is necessary
to contact the EC’s Publications Office OPOCE.
EUROVOC is a wide-coverage thesaurus that organises
its over 6,000 descriptors (classes) from 21 different fields
(e.g. politics, finance, science, social questions, organisations,
foodstuff, etc.) hierarchically into a maximum of 8
levels. EUROVOC exists in currently 22 languages where
each numerical descriptor code has exactly one terminological
correspondence per language.
As EUROVOC is a wide-coverage thesaurus with only
6000 classes, its descriptors are mostly rather high-level,
conceptual terms. Examples are PROTECTION OF MINORI-
TIES, FISHERY MANAGEMENT and CONSTRUCTION AND
TOWN PLANNING. 9 Unlike the concrete low-level terms
from TARIC and many other nomenclatures, EUROVOC descriptors
cannot normally be extracted from texts, i.e. they
can only rarely be found via a lookup procedure. Instead,
EUROVOC classification is a keyword assignment task, i.e.
the most pertinent descriptors from an independent reference
list (the thesaurus) are assigned to a text even if these
terms do not occur verbatim in the text.
In the various European parliaments, this assignment
is done manually by professional librarians, but the JRC
has developed a system that learns from manually classified
documents to assign a ranked list of EUROVOC descriptors
to any given text. This work is described in detail
in Pouliquen et al. (2003a) so that we only summarise the
procedure here: The system maps documents onto EURO-
VOC by carrying out category-ranking classification using
Machine Learning methods. In an inductive process, it
builds a profile-based classifier by observing the manual
classification on a training set of documents with only
positive examples. Table 2 shows the first few of a long
list of words automatically identified as being significant
for the EUROVOC descriptor FISHERY MANAGEMENT. Before
feeding the training texts to the ML algorithm, some
linguistic pre-processing was carried out to lemmatise
words and to mark up multi-word terms such as
power_plant and New_York as one token and a large stop
word list of words with low semantic content was used.
However, tests have shown that lemmatisation and multiword
mark-up had only little impact on the performance
for Spanish and English. Assignment results for the highly
inflected Finnish language were very comparable, showing
that the statistical method can be applied without using
linguistic tools, if necessary.
A manual evaluation of the EUROVOC descriptor assignment
process for English and Spanish parliamentary
documents, taking human performance as a benchmark,
showed that the system performs 86% and 80% as well as
the professional indexers did. For details, see Pouliquen et
al. (2003a).
The outcome of the mapping process for a given text is
a ranked list of the EUROVOC classes that are most pertinent
for this text. Table 3 shows the first few EUROVOC
9 We write all EUROVOC descriptors in small caps.

Lemma
Weight
fishery_resource 54.47
fishing 49.11
fish 46.19
common_fishery_policy 44.67
fishery 44.19
fishing_activity 43.37
fly_the_flag 42.87
aquaculture 39.27
conservation 38.34
vessel 37.91
Table 2. The first few of a long list of lemmas that have
been automatically identified as being highly relevant
and typical for documents that were manually classified
with the EUROVOC descriptor FISHERY MANAGEMENT,
plus their weight (the profile of the descriptor). The
presence of many of these lemmas in a given text indicate
a certain likelihood that FISHERY MANAGEMENT is
an appropriate descriptor for this text.
descriptors assigned automatically to a text found on the
internet.
Due to the multilingual nature of EUROVOC, this representation
is independent of the text language so that it is
very suitable for cross-lingual document similarity calculation.
The system has currently been trained for thirteen
languages so that documents written in any of these languages
can be represented with the same languageindependent
EUROVOC descriptor vector. Unlike the applications
described in sections 2.1 and 2.2, this Machine
Learning method to map documents onto thesauri requires
training material, i.e. documents that have been manually
classified. While some linguistic, rule-based or dictionarybased
approaches exist for automatic thesaurus indexing
(e.g. Marjorie & Hainebach 1996), more recent efforts
such as the one by Montejo-Ráez (2002) tend to exploit
the power of ML approaches. The advantage of these becomes
even more evident for highly multilingual applications
such as automatic EUROVOC indexing.
Most other highly multilingual thesauri we are aware
of are subject-specific, such as the agricultural thesaurus
AGROVOC, the particle physics thesaurus DESY and the
medical thesauri UMLS and MeSH. AGROVOC, which is
freely available at the FAO web site 10 , exists in six major
world languages. The medical thesaurus MeSH exists in
twelve mainly European languages, but according to Nelson
et al. (2000), the thesaurus has fully or partially been
translated into a further eight world languages, including
Slovene.
3. Language-independent text features
The mapping processes described in section 2 yield several
vector space document representations, one for each
thesaurus, nomenclature, gazetteer or word list used. Further
multilingual representations can be generated by extracting
named entities to create lists of text features such
as (a) date or (b) currency expressions, (c) numbers and
10 See http://www.fao.org/agrovoc/.
(d) names, as these can be represented in a normalised,
language-independent format. For an introduction to the
state of the art of the field of Named Entity Recognition
(NER), see Daille & Morin (2000). Names of people or organisations
are not strictly language-independent because
names may be written differently depending on the language
(and sometimes even within the language), but at
least among European languages many names are spelled
the same. Due to the historical relatedness of many European
languages, there are even (e) a few general language
words that are similar or the same. These are usually referred
to as cognates. The English and German words
‘finger’, ‘arm’, ‘demonstration’, ‘computer’, etc. are some
examples. In this section, we describe how these five additional
text features can be recognised and exploited to
contribute to linking related documents both monolingually
and across languages.
3.1. Date and currency expressions
Within the same language, there are usually different
ways of writing a certain date or currency expression (e.g.
English 13 October 2004, 13/10/2004, 13.10.2004, thirteenth
of October of the year two thousand and four, etc.).
Some of these date expressions may be the same as in
other languages (e.g. 13.10.2004), but others are not. As
the underlying concept is the same, namely a reference to
a specific date in the same time reference system, the concept
can be expressed in a standard way (see, for instance,
ISO standard ISO-8601) so that it is the same across languages.
For dates, we currently use ‘DD’YYYYMMDD.
Expressions such as 13.10.2004 are thus normalised to
DD20041013.
At the JRC, we do not currently recognise currency expressions,
but we have developed a tool that recognises
and normalises date expressions. It is a languageindependent
software tool that uses language-specific parameter
files, one per language. The set of languages includes
Slovene. A preliminary version of this tool is described
in Ignat et al. (2003). It is available on request.
The language-specific parameter file allows to list
days of the week, months of the year, common abbreviations
for week days and months, cardinal and ordinal
number expressions, words that can be part of the date expression
(e.g. of the year), as well as expressions used for
relative dates such as yesterday, last December, etc. It furthermore
allows to specify ordering rules. In English, for
Rank Descriptor
Similarity
1 VETERINARY LEGISLATION 42.4%
2 PUBLIC HEALTH 37.1%
3 VETERINARY INSPECTION 36.6%
4 FOOD CONTROL 35.6%
5 FOOD INSPECTION 34.8%
6 AUSTRIA 29.5%
7 VETERINARY PRODUCT 28.9%
8 COMMUNITY CONTROL 28.4%
Table 3. Assignment results (8 top-ranking descriptors)
for the document Food and veterinary Office mission to
Austria, found on the internet at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/vi/reports/au
stria/vi_rep_oste_1074-1999_en.html.

instance, it is possible to mention the DAY after the
MONTH (e.g. May 2 nd ) whereas this is not allowed in German
and other languages. The tool recognises absolute
and relative dates, as well as complete and incomplete
dates. The expression last December thus is a relative incomplete
date with underspecified DAY. If a reference
date is given (this can, for instance, be the publication
date for newspaper articles), the tool can calculate the
normalised expression DD20031200 for the words last
December if the reference date is in the year 2004.
The tool does not currently attempt to recognise time
expression (e.g. 5 PM; 17:15), date periods (e.g. 14-15
October 2004; in the 1960s), incomplete dates with only
one of DAY, MONTH or YEAR (e.g. in October; on the
third), or named cultural festivities (e.g. at Christmas).
An evaluation of the tool on English texts from the
Message Understanding Conference MUC (considering
only the date expressions the tool attempts to recognise)
yielded the following precision/recall values: relative
dates: 86%/67%; complete dates: 100%/100%; incomplete
dates: 98%/98% (for details, see Ignat 2003). The main
problems regarding relative dates have since been corrected
(e.g. this may was recognised as ‘May of the reference
year’) so that the results are now better. The evaluation
of the tool on Romanian news texts yielded similar
results.
For some document types such as news articles, a list
of the normalised date expressions can be a meaningful
signature of the text. Together with further signatures for
names, etc., documents can be described rather accurately.
Following recognition, date expressions can be highlighted
in text for faster retrieval (similar to place names
in Figure 1). Another advantage of the application is that,
once the recognised dates are normalised and stored in a
database, users can search for all articles mentioning a
date in a certain period, by using a simple SQL query.
3.2. Proper names
According to Gey (2000), 30% of content-bearing words
in journalistic text are proper names such as names of
people and of organisations. Friburger & Maurel (2002)
showed that names recognised in text are very valuable
for document similarity calculation, but say that the usage
of names alone is not sufficient for this purpose. It is obvious,
though, that a list of proper names can be a highly
significant signature for at least journalistic text. If combined
with further signatures, as proposed in this article,
name lists can be very powerful.
Proper name recognition is a subject area that is very
well understood and a number of named entity recognition
(NER) tools are available either commercially or for research.
At the JRC, we are currently using two alternative
approaches to recognise people’s names: (a) a PERL tool
with regular expressions that identifies sequences of uppercase
words as names if they are introduced or followed
by cue words such as President, Professor, teacher, etc.;
(b) the part-of-speech output of the readily trained Tree
Tagger 11 , combined with some minimalist local grammar
rules. Until now, we have exploited the Tree Tagger tool
only for English text, although trained Tree Tagger versions
are also available for French, German and Italian.
Spelling
Vladimir Putin
Vladimir Poetin
Vladimir Poutine
Vladimir V Putin
Vladmir Putin
Vladímir Putin
Wladimir Putin
Władimir Putin
Language(s)
DA, EN, ES, IT, NO, SV
NL
FR
EN
EN
ES
DE
PL
Table 4. Variations of the name of the Russian President
found in news texts in various languages.
The less sophisticated PERL tool misses names that are not
surrounded by cue words, but it has the advantage that it
is just a question of a few hours to extend it to new languages,
so that we are now able to recognise names in
English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Estonian and
Bulgarian.
Even within the same language and the same text, authors
often use different versions of the same name. This
is not only true for foreign names such as Al Qaida (Al
Qaeda, Al Kaida, etc.), but also for known names such as
George Bush (George W. Bush, George Bush Jr., George
Walker Bush, etc.). After having examined a number of
approximative matching techniques, we decided to implement
a simple letter trigram measure that allows us to
recognise many monolingual and cross-lingual name
variations found, as shown in Table 4. The most frequent
variation is now taken as the prototypical one that is
stored in the database, and all others are stored in an alias
list of variations. Via an automatic lookup of the Wikipedia
online encyclopaedia in various languages 12 , further
name variations such as Japanese ウラジーミル
プーチン, Chinese 普 京 and Russian Владимир Путин
can be found automatically.
By using the PERL regular expressions continuously
over time, a database of frequently mentioned person’s
names can be built up so that names can then be found in
new text by using simple lookup procedures, without the
need for cue words.
The result of the proper name recognition is thus a list
of people’s names mentioned in a given text, together
with possible name variants and with information on how
often the name was mentioned, both in the given text and
in other texts over time. This latter frequency can be used
to weight the relevance of names in a given text, using
TF.IDF or a related measure, in order to down-weight frequently
mentioned names such as George Bush and to
highlight new or rarely used person names.
3.3. Cognates and numbers
When comparing the tokens of texts written in different
languages with each other, one can frequently find some
overlap. This overlap usually consists of (a) numbers in
numerical form (e.g. 596), (b) names or (c) other words
that are coincidentally the same across languages (cognates).
Cognates are normally due to common historical
11 http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/projekte/corplex/
TreeTagger/DecisionTreeTagger.html
12 See various language versions at
http://en.wikipedia.org, http://de.wikipedia.org, etc.

oots (e.g. English finger and arm vs. German Finger and
Arm) or because they adapted the same loanwords (e.g.
German Computer and Italian computer). These three
types of identical text tokens can be exploited to contribute
constructively to cross-lingual document similarity
calculation. Two news articles about the same event written
in English and Spanish, for instance, are likely to have
a number of tokens in common, while two articles about
different events are likely to have less tokens in common.
Obviously, several limitations are linked to this approach:
(a) Number formats can differ from one language to the
other, for instance due to the different usage of number
separators (e.g. English 1,000.00 vs. German
1.000,00), but more often than not there is no difference
(1000 is used in both languages).
(b) Names of people and places often differ from one language
to the other because of different pronunciation
rules (e.g. English Al Qaeda vs. German Al Kaida), or
for historical reasons (e.g. English Venice vs. German
Venedig vs. French Venise, etc.). Languages with different
writing systems are much less likely to have
word tokens in common, even if the pronunciation of
the words is identical (e.g. Italian Venezia vs. Greek
Βενετία).
(c) So-called false friends (words that are the same without
sharing the same meaning, such as English manifestation
and French manifestation or English war and
German war) would cause false hits.
Many more historically related words across languages
could theoretically be exploited, by writing rules that implement
some historical language change phenomena. Especially
the large number of European words with Greek,
Latin or Germanic origin should be easy to identify: Examples
include English pharmacy vs. French pharmacie
and English elephant vs. French elephant vs. German Elefant
vs. Italian elefante. While the benefit of the rulebased
or trigram-based similarity measure has not been
proven, we are already exploiting identical cognates,
numbers and other identical text tokens across languages
in a system for multilingual news topic tracking, as described
in section 6.
4. Dealing with language-specific issues
From a linguistic point of view, the procedures described
in the previous sections are relatively simplistic. They
mainly rely on tokenisation, case information, dictionary
lookup procedures, stop word lists, simple local patterns,
heuristics, and statistics and Machine Learning methods
operating on ‘words’ without part-of-speech information.
Many of these procedures will work well with English
texts as English has a rather poor morphology. However,
this approach will be much less successful for more highly
inflected languages like Hungarian or those of the Slavic
language family.
It should be possible to overcome most of these phenomena
with the help of good morphology tools, but these
are not available to us for the large range of languages we
are interested in (all twenty official EU languages and
more!). As the manpower available in the JRC’s Language
Technology group is rather limited, as well, we had to resort,
yet again, to some simple heuristics that would allow
us to benefit as much as possible from the available multilingual
resources and the language-independent text features
while limiting the effort to a few weeks per language.
With the existing applications already being set up,
adding the language-specific resources for a new language
takes between two and twelve weeks. Extracting the relevant
terminology from the TARIC product description and
preparing it for the application described in section 2.2 is
rather labour-intensive so that it takes an additional estimated
12 weeks. It is clear that not all linguistic phenomena
and not all languages can be dealt with, but for a large
number of European languages this is sufficient to produce
good and very useful text analysis applications, as
described in section 6.
For the statistical EUROVOC thesaurus text classification
task, experiments with Spanish have shown that, surprisingly,
performance gains only approximately 2%
when operating on lemmas rather than on inflected words.
Furthermore, multilingual performance tests for EUROVOC
descriptor assignment on eleven different languages from
different language families, including German, Spanish,
Finnish and Lithuanian, have shown that performance is
rather uniform across the languages. Details about these
experiments can be found in Pouliquen et al. (2003a).
Simple dictionary lookup procedures such as for geocoding
and product recognition are, however, more sensitive
to word form variations because inflected word forms
such as New Yorker will not be found in text if the gazetteer
only contains the base form New York. We solve this
problem partially by providing language-specific regular
expressions that strip potential suffixes off those uppercase
words that were found in a text, but not in the place
name gazetteer. For instance, if words like Londonit,
Frankfurdis or New Yorgile are found in Estonian text,
regular expressions will strip -it to produce London and
will replace dis to t and gile to k in order to produce
Frankfurt and New York. Together with Finnish, Estonian
is known for its extremely sophisticated morphology.
However, place names occur with a limited number of
case endings (in/to/from/… London) so that 37 regular expressions
cover most cases. For most languages, a much
smaller number of regular expressions is needed. A small
evaluation on Estonian news headlines showed that 63 out
of 72 place names were recognised correctly (Recall =
87.5%). The remaining nine places were not found because
either the place name was not in the database or because
the suffix stripping rule was missing (about equal
parts). No wrong hits occurred in the test set (precision =
100%).
It should be possible to apply the same suffix-stripping
procedure to other kinds of vocabulary lists such as products,
professions, etc. However, as these lists are likely to
be larger and we cannot limit our search to upper case
words, the lookup process should be slower and it is possible
that it will produce more wrong hits.
It is not certain that for an agglutinative language like
Hungarian, which can add many different types of suffixes
one after the other, suffix stripping is feasible. It
would be an interesting experiment to apply cascades of
suffix-stripping regular expressions to see whether this
helps to find place names, but the danger to get false hits
due to over-stripping is big.
Further tokenisation issues arise when dealing with
languages such as Chinese which do not mark word borders
by a space, and compounding languages like German
where (mostly) nouns can be combined to form long
words. While, at least in German, expressions like Ber-

Figure 2. Document profile (mock-up) summarising the information extracted from documents. Entities linked to multilingual
thesauri and nomenclatures can be displayed in several languages.
liner actor (an actor from Berlin) are not compounded
(Berliner Schauspieler), nouns referring to products are:
Sauerstoffflaschenventilverschluss (oxygen bottle valve
closure).
For most European languages, the uppercase/lowercase
distinction can be exploited when looking
for the names of people or places. The same is not true for
languages like Japanese, Hindi and Arabic. Furthermore,
case rules even differ to some extent between languages
such as English and French (e.g. the English vs. les anglais)
so that rules either have to be adapted specifically to
each language or lower recall has to be accepted when
looking only at uppercase words.
5. Language-independent procedures and
applications
In the highly multilingual setting of the set of applications
discussed in this article, language-independent text analysis
procedures are very useful. We currently use the following
applications:
(a) An automatic language guessing tool using letter bigram
and trigram statistics, that has currently been
trained for 25 languages.
(b) A keyword extraction tool that identifies the statistically
most salient words and their relative importance
(their keyness) by comparing the word frequency in
the text with an average word frequency as found in
large reference corpora. While we use the loglikelihood
formula to extract and rank the words, other
formulae like TF.IDF are possible alternatives. A list of
stop words can be used to stop some words from being
identified as keywords that are low in semantic content
or that are meaningless when being out of context. A
ranked list of keywords for a document is a good vector
space representation of this document.
(c) A tool to measure the similarity between two documents
by calculating the cosine or another similarity
measure between the vector space representations of
two documents. Monolingually, the list of extracted
keywords and their keyness can be used as input. For
cross-lingual similarity calculation, features like the
ones discussed in this article can be fed to the system.
(d) This document similarity measure can be used for a
number of applications, including hierarchical unsupervised
document clustering, classification and
query-by-example document retrieval.
Further applications that can be based on languageindependent
methods are automatic document summarisation
by extracting the most relevant sentences (e.g. those
containing most keywords), and the generation of document
maps. Document maps such as Kohonen maps are
two-dimensional representations of the multi-dimensional
document space that can be useful to get a first overview
of the main contents of a large document collection or to
navigate in the document collection.

Figure 3. German news automatically identified as being about the same subject, together with the title of the most representative
news article, the keywords for this cluster and a map showing the place names mentioned in the cluster. The links
below lead to the corresponding news article cluster in English, Spanish, French and Italian.
6. Applications
At the JRC, we combine applications based on the language-independent
algorithms listed in section 5 with the
information extracted according to the procedures described
in sections 2 and 3. In spite of the relatively shallow
linguistic processing, we were able to produce applications
that are being used as regular in-house services
and for the ad-hoc analysis of document collections given
to us by various users.
Once entities such as dates, names or products have
been identified, they can be highlighted in text in different
colours to allow users to find them quickly, as shown in
Figure 1. For foreign language text, the entity can be displayed
in another language to give users information
about a text that they might not otherwise understand
(cross-lingual information access). The various information
aspects (products, places, keywords, etc.) extracted
from unrestricted and unstructured text can also be displayed
together to provide users with sort of a document
profile, as shown in Figure 2. Those information aspects
that are linked to multilingual nomenclatures, gazetteers
and thesauri can furthermore be displayed in languages
other than the document language.
The structured meta-information is stored in a database
to enable users to search document collections by using
this meta-data as features. This makes it possible, for
instance, to search for all documents mentioning tobacco
products, making reference to Turkey and mentioning a
date in the range 1.01.2003 and 31.03.2003.
When the reference of geographical place names has
been identified unambiguously, i.e. when we have identified
latitude and longitude of the places, it is easy to create
a map showing the geographical coverage of a document,
of a cluster of documents or of a whole document
collection. Figure 3 shows a small map with those geographical
places highlighted that were mentioned in a
cluster of news articles about the same subject. It also
shows how the clustering of news represented by their
automatically identified keywords successfully identifies
all those articles that talk about the same event (in Figure
3, it is the discovery of our solar system’s tenth planet,
Sedna, in March 2004). The vector space representation of
the whole cluster can be compared to that of each individual
article, by calculating the cosine, so that the article
whose representation is closest to the centroid of the cluster’s
representation can be chosen as the most typical article
whose title can be chosen as the cluster title.
Figure 3 also shows how cross-lingual links between a
cluster and the news clusters in other languages can be established
successfully by using the multilingual nomenclatures,
thesauri and gazetteers as an interlingua. The
JRC's cross-lingual news tracking system (Pouliquen
2004b) represents each cluster by three different vectors.
When comparing this document representation with those
of clusters in other languages, each of the three vectors
contributes with a different weight to the overall similarity
between the clusters of documents written in different
languages, as described in Pouliquen (2004b). Another
usage of the cross-lingual document similarity calculation
is the automatic compilation of collections of parallel (or
comparable) texts to train and test information extraction
or Machine Translation software. When testing the document
similarity calculation based only on the EUROVOC
descriptor vector representation of 820 English documents
and their Spanish translations (Pouliquen et al. 2003b), we
found that in 90.61% of cases, the Spanish translation was
successfully found as being the most similar Spanish

document for a given English document. When adding information
about the length of texts to exploit the fact that
translations should have a similar length to the original
document, the result increased to 96.83%. This result
shows that processes to map documents onto a multilingual
thesaurus can lead to extremely powerful applications.
Cross-lingual document similarity calculation is
also an essential ingredient for cross-lingual document
plagiarism detection, an application for which, to our
knowledge, no solutions have been proposed to date.
7. Conclusion
The intention of this article was to describe how multilingual
knowledge sources such as gazetteers, vocabulary
lists, nomenclatures and thesauri, as well as languageindependent
text features such as dates, can be exploited
for information extraction tasks, to provide cross-lingual
information access and to calculate cross-lingual document
similarity, which itself is a basic ingredient for many
more text analysis applications. We furthermore wanted to
show how relatively naïve text analysis tools can be helpful
to develop powerful text analysis applications for
many different languages with rather little effort, once the
methodology has been decided on and the tools have been
set up. At the JRC, we have already developed the language-specific
resources for a number of European languages
and we are currently making an effort to extend
this tool set to all twenty official languages of the European
Union. While we have no doubt that it is possible to
produce better results with more thorough linguistic
methods, such labour-intensive language-specific work is
not an option for our small team whose aim it is to work
on 20 or more languages. Instead, we exploit existing
multilingual lexical resources (even if they had not initially
been developed for machine use) and languageindependent
text features, and we make use of Machine
Learning techniques, statistical methods and heuristics.
We believe to have shown that this approach can lead to
good results and that it is even possible to produce working
versions of novel applications such as cross-lingual
news topic tracking using an interlingua document representation.
The effort required to develop the languagespecific
resources for a new language ranges between one
week and three months for the applications we are currently
using. Extracting and developing TARIC product
nomenclature terms is a comparatively labour-intensive
task that requires an additional estimated two to three
months. In order to extend the current tool set to new languages
and applications, the JRC is actively seeking collaborators
such as mother tongue students who would join
us as trainees.
Individual applications out of the set presented in this
paper have been tested and proven, including date and
place name recognition, EUROVOC thesaurus descriptor assignment,
monolingual news clustering and news topic
tracking, and cross-lingual news topic tracking. A number
of other applications presented here still need to be evaluated
formally. Furthermore, it would be useful to carry out
a thorough one-by-one evaluation of the effectiveness of
each of the text features presented here, and of their relative
impact for cross-lingual document similarity calculation.
The JRC can share tools and resources with noncommercial
entities if they are not bound by copyrights
owned by other organisations. The JRC is furthermore interested
in collaborations yielding more language resources,
especially for the new EU languages.
Acknowledgements
Many people have contributed to developing the tool set
described in this paper and to developing and evaluating
the language-specific resources for various languages. We
would particularly like to thank Laima Norviliené (born
Cekyte) and Irina Temnikova for their help with the product
recognition tool, Victoria Fernandez Mera, Elisabet
Lindkvist Michailaki and Arturo Montejo-Ráez for their
help regarding the EUROVOC thesaurus indexing application,
Marco Kimler for his refinement of the geo-coding
tool, and Emilia Käsper, Ippolita Valerio, Tom de Groeve,
Victoria Fernandez Mera, Tomaž Erjavec, Christian Gold
and Irina Temnikova for their help in creating languagespecific
resources for Estonian, Italian, Dutch, Spanish,
Slovene, German, Bulgarian and Russian. We would also
like to thank the JRC’s Web Technology team for providing
us with the multilingual news collection to develop
and test many of the applications described here.
8. References
Daille Béatrice & Emmanuel Morin (2000). Reconnaissance
automatique des noms propres de la langue
écrite : les récentes réalisations. In: D. Maurel & F.
Guenthner : Traitement automatique des langues
vol. 41, No. 3. Traitement des noms propres, pp. 601-
623. Hermes, Paris.
Eurovoc (1995). Thesaurus EUROVOC - Volume 2: Subject-Oriented
Version. Ed. 3/English Language. Annex
to the index of the Official Journal of the EC. Luxembourg,
Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities. http://europa.eu.int/celex/eurovoc.
Friburger N. & D. Maurel (2002). Textual Similarity
Based on Proper Names. Proceedings of the workshop
‘Mathematical/Formal Methods in Information Retrieval’
(MFIR’2002) at the 25th ACM SIGIR Conference,
pp. 155-167. Tampere, Finland.
Gey Frederic (2000). Research to Improve Cross-
Language Retrieval – Position Paper for CLEF. In C.
Peters (ed.): Cross-Language Information Retrieval and
Evaluation, Workshop of Cross-Language Evaluation
Forum (CLEF’2000), Lisbon, Portugal. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science 2069, Springer.
Hyland R., C. Clifton & R. Holland (1999). GeoNODE:
Visualizing News in Geospatial Context. In Afca99.
Ignat Camelia, Bruno Pouliquen, António Ribeiro & Ralf
Steinberger (2003). Extending an Information Extraction
Tool Set to Central and Eastern European Languages.
In: Proceedings of the International Workshop
‘Information Extraction for Slavonic and other Central
and Eastern European Languages’ (IESL'2003), held at
RANLP'2003, pp. 33-39. Borovets, Bulgaria, 8 - 9 September
2003.
Leek Tim, Hubert Jin, Sreenivasa Sista & Richard
Schwartz (1999). The BBN Crosslingual Topic Detection
and Tracking System. In 1999 TDT Evaluation System
Summary
Papers.
http://www.nist.gov/speech/tests/tdt/tdt99/papers
Marjorie M.K. Hlava & Richard Hainebach (1996). Multilingual
Machine Indexing. NIT'1996. available at
http://joan.simmons.edu/~chen/nit/NIT'96/96-105-Hava.htm

Montejo-Ráez Arturo (2002). Towards conceptual indexing
using automatic assignment of descriptors. Workshop
on ‘Personalisation Techniques in Electronic Publishing
on the Web: Trends and Perspectives’. Málaga,
Spain, May 2002.
Nelson Stuart, Michael Schopen, Jacque-Lynne Schulman
& Natalie Arluk (2000). An interlingual database of
MeSH translations. 8 th International Conference on
Medical Librarianship. London, July 2000.
Norviliené Laima (forthcoming). Computerlinguistische
Analyse von Produktthesauri. Unpublished Master’s
Thesis. Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Centre
for Information and Language Processing.
Pouliquen Bruno, Ralf Steinberger & Camelia Ignat
(2003a). Automatic Annotation of Multilingual Text
Collections with a Conceptual Thesaurus. In: Proceedings
of the Workshop ‘Ontologies and Information Extraction’
at the Summer School ‘The Semantic Web and
Language Technology - Its Potential and Practicalities’
(EUROLAN'2003). Bucharest, Romania, 28 July - 8 August
2003.
Pouliquen Bruno, Ralf Steinberger & Camelia Ignat
(2003b). Automatic Identification of Document Translations
in Large Multilingual Document Collections.
Proceedings of the International Conference Recent Advances
in Natural Language Processing (RANLP'2003),
Borovets, Bulgaria.
Pouliquen Bruno, Ralf Steinberger, Camelia Ignat & Tom
de Groeve (2004a). Geographical Information Recognition
and Visualisation in Texts Written in Various Languages.
In: Proceedings of the 19 th Annual ACM Symposium
on Applied Computing (SAC'2004), Special
Track on Information Access and Retrieval (SAC-IAR),
vol. 2, pp. 1051-1058. Nicosia, Cyprus, 14 - 17 March
2004.
Pouliquen Bruno, Ralf Steinberger, Camelia Ignat, Emilia
Käsper & Irina Temnikova (2004b). Multilingual and
Cross-lingual News Topic Tracking. In: Proceedings of
the 20 th International Conference on Computational
Linguistics (CoLing'2004). Geneva, Switzerland, 23-27
August 2004.
Wactlar H.D. (1999). New Directions in Video Information
Extraction and Summarization. In Proceedings of
the 10 th DELOS Workshop, Sanorini, Greece, 24-25 June
1999.